I respect Martin Scorsese immensely as a filmmaker. He is very talented and has created some of the best movies ever made. His new movie The Departed opened yesterday and I was interested and excited to see it until I looked in the newspaper and saw......'Running Time: 2 hours 38 minutes.'
Ugh.
There are certain movies that can run over 2.5 hours and I'll stick with them, North By Northwest, 2001:A Space Odyssey, heck I enjoyed every minute of 'Seven Samurai's 3.5 hours, but I can't help but wonder if this movie needs to be so long. I need only look back to his last film, 2004's The Aviator. That was a great movie, but after 2 hours 48 minutes, I thought it couldn't have benefited from losing 20-30 minutes. Action/Adventure movies can run long because they have big, long action sequences that make the time go by quickly and things like that, but a cop/mob movie like this, I don't know, it just seems a smidge too long. Goodfellas was 2 hours 20 minutes and that is about as long as it should be. The Godfather is a 3 hour mob movie, but Coppola's original cut was around 2 hours, and the studio told him they wanted an sweeping, operatic epic, not an above average mob movie (talk about getting what you ask for). Anyway, point is, that movie is 3 hours, but it is so good you (or at least I) would stick with it for 4 hours (and 2 sequels). The Departed, however, does not strike me as an epic.
In his old age Marty seems to have gotten a wee bit over-indulgent in his craft. Then again, I could be wrong, this movie could be like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and fly right on by, but I doubt it.
I'll go see, in spite of that seemingly incessant length, because it has Jack Nicholson (as a bad guy), Leo, Marty Sheen, and Scorsese is a great director and then I'll come back and give report.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Spanning the Globe
Word out of Iraq is that it is, surprise surprise, getting worse. It is being reported that American troops are taking Iraqi police/armed forces off the streets because the Iraqi people don't trust them; believing they are in collusion with Shiite militia in attacking Sunni civilians in a form of ethnic cleansing.
The people don't trust the police and believe their is an ethnic cleansing taking place: how much has changed since Saddam was deposed? I know, I know, stay the course, the people will buy into democracy and liberty eventually.
Also in connection to this, Keith Olbermann mentioned yesterday on his show 'Countdown', that Congress has set aside $20m for a celebration when/if there is final victory in Iraq/Afghanistan, while halving funding for research for brain trauma injuries (from $14m to $7m), the leading cause of mortality for American soldiers in Iraq due to IED's.
The Sudanese government continues to reject receiving UN armed peacekeepers. They continue to maintain that the problem isn't as bad as it's being reported. Also, they say they would prefer if China (who is a trade partner) and other Arab and African countries took a bigger role in resolving the conflict, though they say they would welcome UN assistance in training and development of African Union troops, but they do not want US and UK troops coming in, making Sudan the next front in the war on terror.
Brazil's election last Sunday failed to turn up a winner, as no candidate gained a majority, so Alckmin and Lula will have a run off at the end of the month. Lula, the incumbent, is increasingly being accused of scandal and corruption and Alckmin is gaining support, and the 8-10% of voters who voted for the neither of them will have to vote for one or the other. Current polls show Lula ahead by about 8 points, but he dropped his campaign manager and that angered some, and with the stench of scandal hanging around it could become closer in the coming weeks. As this is the largest nation in Latin America, it could be regionally significant if they stick with the "leftist" president, as opposed to returning to the more "conservative" candidate.
George H.W. Bush and Pervez Musharraf say the pledges to reconstruct Pakistan after the massive earthqauke are not coming through, with Bush fearing the growing number of humanitarian causes around the world is creating 'donor fatigue', after the Banda Aceh tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Pakistan earthquake, and various other recent campaigns.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the Republicans leaked this Foley story last weekend. Last week the big story was just how bad things are going in Iraq, through both the NIE and Bob Woodward's new book; this was an easy shifting of 'the story' as they know we can't resist a juicy Washington sex scandal (even if, as in this case, there was no sex involved). This gives them the opportunity to demonize the "liberal media", blame the Democrats for leaking the story and politicizing the event with no consideration for the children, and most importantly, it kills all momentum that was building in criticism of the handling of Iraq.
(Bear in mind, this is the same conspiracy theorist in me that is not sold on the official story of 9/11...seriously, what happened to Tower 7?)
The people don't trust the police and believe their is an ethnic cleansing taking place: how much has changed since Saddam was deposed? I know, I know, stay the course, the people will buy into democracy and liberty eventually.
Also in connection to this, Keith Olbermann mentioned yesterday on his show 'Countdown', that Congress has set aside $20m for a celebration when/if there is final victory in Iraq/Afghanistan, while halving funding for research for brain trauma injuries (from $14m to $7m), the leading cause of mortality for American soldiers in Iraq due to IED's.
The Sudanese government continues to reject receiving UN armed peacekeepers. They continue to maintain that the problem isn't as bad as it's being reported. Also, they say they would prefer if China (who is a trade partner) and other Arab and African countries took a bigger role in resolving the conflict, though they say they would welcome UN assistance in training and development of African Union troops, but they do not want US and UK troops coming in, making Sudan the next front in the war on terror.
Brazil's election last Sunday failed to turn up a winner, as no candidate gained a majority, so Alckmin and Lula will have a run off at the end of the month. Lula, the incumbent, is increasingly being accused of scandal and corruption and Alckmin is gaining support, and the 8-10% of voters who voted for the neither of them will have to vote for one or the other. Current polls show Lula ahead by about 8 points, but he dropped his campaign manager and that angered some, and with the stench of scandal hanging around it could become closer in the coming weeks. As this is the largest nation in Latin America, it could be regionally significant if they stick with the "leftist" president, as opposed to returning to the more "conservative" candidate.
George H.W. Bush and Pervez Musharraf say the pledges to reconstruct Pakistan after the massive earthqauke are not coming through, with Bush fearing the growing number of humanitarian causes around the world is creating 'donor fatigue', after the Banda Aceh tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Pakistan earthquake, and various other recent campaigns.
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the Republicans leaked this Foley story last weekend. Last week the big story was just how bad things are going in Iraq, through both the NIE and Bob Woodward's new book; this was an easy shifting of 'the story' as they know we can't resist a juicy Washington sex scandal (even if, as in this case, there was no sex involved). This gives them the opportunity to demonize the "liberal media", blame the Democrats for leaking the story and politicizing the event with no consideration for the children, and most importantly, it kills all momentum that was building in criticism of the handling of Iraq.
(Bear in mind, this is the same conspiracy theorist in me that is not sold on the official story of 9/11...seriously, what happened to Tower 7?)
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Mic check one, two
I was in a particularly cynical mood the latter part of last month and this was the musical by-product:
A Misguided Notion
Last week, religion jumped into the political discourse once again, after everyone had gotten their fill of the Bill Clinton-Chris Wallace thing, with the noise that the All Saints Church in Pasadena is being investigated by the IRS for possible violations of rules for tax-exempt entities, citing a sermon from 2004.
The left immediately attacked it, calling it a partisan move, because there was no investigation of any of "many" conservative clergymen who blatantly pushed GW Bush, such as Ted Haggard who became something a celebrity during the 2004 election season for his bombastic support of W. (This is not the case, there are apparently dozens of active investigations by the IRS on this issue, this one just got publicized.)
The sermon was presented as a scenario in which Jesus would debate Bush and Kerry, but really it's just the preacher putting his words in Jesus' mouth, and it's not so much a debate as it is a string of diatribes. It is very blatantly anti-War, anti-"pro-life"ism, anti-Bush, anti-conservative rhetoric (read the transcript linked above to see for yourself..."Conservative politicians
...have strongly advocated the dismantling of social programs that provide a decent life for children...") but it is not an endorsement of any candidate, because as I recall there were several candidates who fit the anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-conservative agenda in 2004, notably, Kerry, Nader, Bednarik (ok, I know Bednarik was a football player, but that Libertarian's name was something like that too). But the tax-exempt provision prohibits direct political endorsements or oppositions, and this was clearly an argument to not vote for Bush, and thus in violation of the tax-exempt statute and deserving of being investigated. You can't say "well, they got away with it" as a reason for you to get away with violating rules. There are plenty of other speeders on the road, but that doesn't get you out of a ticket if you get caught. (Defenders of Mark Foley, this applies to you too. Stop saying "Clinton did it too." That doesn't make it Foley's case any less shameful.)
Then there was the zeal surrounding a soon-to-be-released documentary, "Jesus Camp", in which children as young as 4 or 5 are seen speaking and praying in tongues, begging for forgiveness in tears, and counselors teach children to "prepare for battle for Christ" and all sorts of other things that shocked and appalled people unfamiliar with the Bible and who'd never seen Christian camp before. Fear rose that we (or rather, the group(s) broadly defined as "The religious right") are training radical Christian extremists the same way Muslims train "Islamo-fascists".
The filmmakers clearly sought out an over-the-top experience for their docu, expectedly, because the spicier it is the more provactive. However, in doing so, they attempt to pass off as mainstream a fringe denomination, and it does not reflect the typical Christian camp, based on what I saw of it on television.
On September 27, Lou Dobbs, of CNN fame, wrote an op-ed entitled Keep Religion Out of Politics"
Excerpting the crux (since I assume no one follows all the links I put in): "The intrusion of religion into our political lives, in my opinion, should be rejected in the same fashion that we constitutionally guarantee government will not interfere with religion."
Politics can avoid interfering in religion because it is an external concept and we choose when and where it can go. If we want politics out of religion, we simply don't legislate it.
Religion, on the other hand, cannot be kept out of politics because religion is internal to all who participate; it becomes part of the person who practices it and since you can't have politics without people, you can't have politics without religion, if religion is practiced freely. That is not to say that politics should be beholden to religious views. Rather, religious views should not be dismissed simply because they are religious views, they should be treated the same as any other views in politics: evaluated for the utilitiarian effectiveness and compatibility with the Constitution and then applied or dismissed accordingly.
To think that religion will sunder our nation more so than extremist pundits ranting ad nauseum with minimal objectivity and our widespread social apathy is a misguided notion.
Speaking of misguided notions...last week it was reported that Tariq Ramadan, a professor from Oxford and one of Time Magazine's 100 next great innovators, was denied entry to the US to accept a professorship in the states because he had, at one point in time, given money to a French organization that DHS says is linked in some way to Hamas. Ramadan says, "I gave money...between December ’98 and July 2002, meaning one year before this organization was blacklisted in the States. And I received today a letter telling me, ‘You should reasonably have known that this organization was connected to Hamas,’ so meaning..I should have known it before the United States administration itself knew it, which is nonsense...It’s not a reason."
I don't understand, one of the supposed great minds of our time wants to come here and enlighten our college students and we say 'no, thank you' because he gave to a charity that may be connected to Hamas in some "6-degrees of Mahmoud Zahar" kind of way?
Oh wait, he's critical of the war in Iraq? Now I get it. Can't have him training dissenters at a college in Ohio. We would be remiss if we forget how that turned out last time.
The left immediately attacked it, calling it a partisan move, because there was no investigation of any of "many" conservative clergymen who blatantly pushed GW Bush, such as Ted Haggard who became something a celebrity during the 2004 election season for his bombastic support of W. (This is not the case, there are apparently dozens of active investigations by the IRS on this issue, this one just got publicized.)
The sermon was presented as a scenario in which Jesus would debate Bush and Kerry, but really it's just the preacher putting his words in Jesus' mouth, and it's not so much a debate as it is a string of diatribes. It is very blatantly anti-War, anti-"pro-life"ism, anti-Bush, anti-conservative rhetoric (read the transcript linked above to see for yourself..."Conservative politicians
...have strongly advocated the dismantling of social programs that provide a decent life for children...") but it is not an endorsement of any candidate, because as I recall there were several candidates who fit the anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-conservative agenda in 2004, notably, Kerry, Nader, Bednarik (ok, I know Bednarik was a football player, but that Libertarian's name was something like that too). But the tax-exempt provision prohibits direct political endorsements or oppositions, and this was clearly an argument to not vote for Bush, and thus in violation of the tax-exempt statute and deserving of being investigated. You can't say "well, they got away with it" as a reason for you to get away with violating rules. There are plenty of other speeders on the road, but that doesn't get you out of a ticket if you get caught. (Defenders of Mark Foley, this applies to you too. Stop saying "Clinton did it too." That doesn't make it Foley's case any less shameful.)
Then there was the zeal surrounding a soon-to-be-released documentary, "Jesus Camp", in which children as young as 4 or 5 are seen speaking and praying in tongues, begging for forgiveness in tears, and counselors teach children to "prepare for battle for Christ" and all sorts of other things that shocked and appalled people unfamiliar with the Bible and who'd never seen Christian camp before. Fear rose that we (or rather, the group(s) broadly defined as "The religious right") are training radical Christian extremists the same way Muslims train "Islamo-fascists".
The filmmakers clearly sought out an over-the-top experience for their docu, expectedly, because the spicier it is the more provactive. However, in doing so, they attempt to pass off as mainstream a fringe denomination, and it does not reflect the typical Christian camp, based on what I saw of it on television.
On September 27, Lou Dobbs, of CNN fame, wrote an op-ed entitled Keep Religion Out of Politics"
Excerpting the crux (since I assume no one follows all the links I put in): "The intrusion of religion into our political lives, in my opinion, should be rejected in the same fashion that we constitutionally guarantee government will not interfere with religion."
Politics can avoid interfering in religion because it is an external concept and we choose when and where it can go. If we want politics out of religion, we simply don't legislate it.
Religion, on the other hand, cannot be kept out of politics because religion is internal to all who participate; it becomes part of the person who practices it and since you can't have politics without people, you can't have politics without religion, if religion is practiced freely. That is not to say that politics should be beholden to religious views. Rather, religious views should not be dismissed simply because they are religious views, they should be treated the same as any other views in politics: evaluated for the utilitiarian effectiveness and compatibility with the Constitution and then applied or dismissed accordingly.
To think that religion will sunder our nation more so than extremist pundits ranting ad nauseum with minimal objectivity and our widespread social apathy is a misguided notion.
Speaking of misguided notions...last week it was reported that Tariq Ramadan, a professor from Oxford and one of Time Magazine's 100 next great innovators, was denied entry to the US to accept a professorship in the states because he had, at one point in time, given money to a French organization that DHS says is linked in some way to Hamas. Ramadan says, "I gave money...between December ’98 and July 2002, meaning one year before this organization was blacklisted in the States. And I received today a letter telling me, ‘You should reasonably have known that this organization was connected to Hamas,’ so meaning..I should have known it before the United States administration itself knew it, which is nonsense...It’s not a reason."
I don't understand, one of the supposed great minds of our time wants to come here and enlighten our college students and we say 'no, thank you' because he gave to a charity that may be connected to Hamas in some "6-degrees of Mahmoud Zahar" kind of way?
Oh wait, he's critical of the war in Iraq? Now I get it. Can't have him training dissenters at a college in Ohio. We would be remiss if we forget how that turned out last time.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Intoducing....pt 2
For those who missed yesterday, this is part 2 of an inaugural offering from guest columnist Jimmy Blanks. I recommend checking back to yesterday's before jumping into this one, because it was written in one piece, but I split it into 2 for sake of length.
I think that young people view love as this sort of grand event that has to somehow be new and exciting and passionate all the time. I don't blame movies for this, but I think that a lot of times young people think love is something that happens in the romantic movies. In most cases, the movie ends with the guy coming around, just catching the girl as she is about to leave or give up on him forever. He apologizes for what he's done, or if he hasn't done anything, he makes this big speech about always loving her (despite the oversight of him not knowing her that well or for very long). And then he says he wants to be with her forever, she says yes, they kiss, the credits roll and an indie rock song plays.
What people don't understand is that in real life, your world and your relationship continue long after those actors finish and get to go home. What happens after you kiss the girl? In real life you can't freeze the scene and then cut to another scene in which you're at home, reminiscing. You kiss, then you stand there, and there is no soundtrack, then you have to decide what to do next.
Additionally, those fiery feelings for your “sweetie” ALWAYS fade. I'm not saying that because I'm cynical or don't believe in love, but it's true. It's also true that they are replaced by deeper, more meaningful feelings.
When I first met Janelle and we first got involved, I couldn't do a single productive thing. I was caught up in that heady, dizzy feeling that is not love but just giddiness. I thought about her all the time, I wanted to doodle her name in notebooks; I wrote about her, I wanted to call her a thousand times a day. It was a wonderful time, but I'm so glad it's over. I would have exploded if that lasts forever. If that is love, we would all die, or at the least the country would grind to a halt. Nobody would be able to think clearly. Nobody would go to work. We'd all want to be outside flying kites and eating ice cream and thinking about cute names for our non-existent children.
I'm more impressed where I am now. It's love, real love. We trust each other. We don't have to call each other a million times a day just to prove ourselves. I don't get worried that she "doesn't like me anymore" just because she doesn't return my text message within 25 seconds. I still think about her all the time, but in a different way. Whenever I see her I still lose my breath, but it's for a different reason. It's because I love her mind, her soul. I love all kinds of things about her that go way beyond the first three weeks of lunacy in relationships. And you know what? It's ordinary.
Before I left, we did regular things, but that is what makes it so extraordinary. We don't need fireworks everyday. We are happy just being with each other. We enjoy each other, not the situation.
That doesn't mean that there aren't bad days. There are plenty of them. We fight. We argue. But this type of happiness exists beneath all those surface anxieties; we understand that we have to work together to reach conclusions instead of trying to find ways to prove that our point is the right one.
We compromise. We sacrifice. We are patient.
Young people sometimes forget all this. They think that love has to be dramatic. They think that if their significant other isn't "on" all the time that there is something wrong with the relationship. Those first few weeks are lovely, but they made me so anxious. You don't know if it's going to work out, you don't know if you want to invest everything into this new person, you don't know anything really. And yet, people tend to return to these times when searching for "love."
I wish that more people would realize that love is not glamorous, and it's not a big public display, and it's not a thousand roses and exotic vacations and fancy restaurants. Love, most of the time, is quiet. It is intimate. It is between two people and nobody else ever has to know or understand the particulars. It just exists, and it persists. It is this wonderful bond between two people.
There you have it...I'll be back behind the keyboard on Thursday. Until then, good night, and good luck.
I think that young people view love as this sort of grand event that has to somehow be new and exciting and passionate all the time. I don't blame movies for this, but I think that a lot of times young people think love is something that happens in the romantic movies. In most cases, the movie ends with the guy coming around, just catching the girl as she is about to leave or give up on him forever. He apologizes for what he's done, or if he hasn't done anything, he makes this big speech about always loving her (despite the oversight of him not knowing her that well or for very long). And then he says he wants to be with her forever, she says yes, they kiss, the credits roll and an indie rock song plays.
What people don't understand is that in real life, your world and your relationship continue long after those actors finish and get to go home. What happens after you kiss the girl? In real life you can't freeze the scene and then cut to another scene in which you're at home, reminiscing. You kiss, then you stand there, and there is no soundtrack, then you have to decide what to do next.
Additionally, those fiery feelings for your “sweetie” ALWAYS fade. I'm not saying that because I'm cynical or don't believe in love, but it's true. It's also true that they are replaced by deeper, more meaningful feelings.
When I first met Janelle and we first got involved, I couldn't do a single productive thing. I was caught up in that heady, dizzy feeling that is not love but just giddiness. I thought about her all the time, I wanted to doodle her name in notebooks; I wrote about her, I wanted to call her a thousand times a day. It was a wonderful time, but I'm so glad it's over. I would have exploded if that lasts forever. If that is love, we would all die, or at the least the country would grind to a halt. Nobody would be able to think clearly. Nobody would go to work. We'd all want to be outside flying kites and eating ice cream and thinking about cute names for our non-existent children.
I'm more impressed where I am now. It's love, real love. We trust each other. We don't have to call each other a million times a day just to prove ourselves. I don't get worried that she "doesn't like me anymore" just because she doesn't return my text message within 25 seconds. I still think about her all the time, but in a different way. Whenever I see her I still lose my breath, but it's for a different reason. It's because I love her mind, her soul. I love all kinds of things about her that go way beyond the first three weeks of lunacy in relationships. And you know what? It's ordinary.
Before I left, we did regular things, but that is what makes it so extraordinary. We don't need fireworks everyday. We are happy just being with each other. We enjoy each other, not the situation.
That doesn't mean that there aren't bad days. There are plenty of them. We fight. We argue. But this type of happiness exists beneath all those surface anxieties; we understand that we have to work together to reach conclusions instead of trying to find ways to prove that our point is the right one.
We compromise. We sacrifice. We are patient.
Young people sometimes forget all this. They think that love has to be dramatic. They think that if their significant other isn't "on" all the time that there is something wrong with the relationship. Those first few weeks are lovely, but they made me so anxious. You don't know if it's going to work out, you don't know if you want to invest everything into this new person, you don't know anything really. And yet, people tend to return to these times when searching for "love."
I wish that more people would realize that love is not glamorous, and it's not a big public display, and it's not a thousand roses and exotic vacations and fancy restaurants. Love, most of the time, is quiet. It is intimate. It is between two people and nobody else ever has to know or understand the particulars. It just exists, and it persists. It is this wonderful bond between two people.
There you have it...I'll be back behind the keyboard on Thursday. Until then, good night, and good luck.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Introducing....
Coming up later this week: I'll finally finish writing 2 posts I was trying to finish for this week: one on religion in politics sparked by a Lou Dobbs op-ed piece, the other a sequel to the Dea(r)th of Comedy which I wrote a little while back, and of course movie Saturday (could be The Departed, could be something throwback...could be both). Now on to today.
Today I introduce a guest contributor, who could become a regular, weekly contributor, Mr. Jimmy Blanks.
For those unfamiliar, Jimmy is a fellow Fresno native and is currently an MFA student at the University of Montana in Fiction Writing. I've known him since we were in 2nd grade and consider him more of a brother than a friend at this point.
Rather than gushing over his abilities, I'll allow his writing to speak for itself. So without further adieu, here's part one of his first offering, the second part will be up on Wednesday. I should preface it by saying this was initially written as an e-mail and has been edited for length and content.
I'm tired of dreaming. I'm tired of resting on my own talents, and not risking failure. I'm beginning to see that these other MFA students are satisfied to sit passively in these workshops and think abstractly about that "great book" they want to write. I don't want to do this. I want to write something and get it out there; that is why I left Fresno in the first place. It would have been much easier to stay in Fresno and postpone my professional life for another 2-3 years. I can't do that anymore. I want more. I want to start taking those chances and making serious decisions instead of saying, "someday, I'd like to publish something." There are too many vague terms in that dream. There is too much wiggle room.
People seem to put too much pressure on themselves because they believe that "one decision will ruin them forever." What they don't realize is that there are no bad decisions. Let me clarify that slightly. There are no bad decisions within reason. We are going to assume for this argument that the decisions aren't criminal or suicidal.
An example: I decided to go to Montana instead of staying in Fresno. Now, I could have agonized over that, and I can still spend my life agonizing over what a horrible decision I've made. But the truth is, I didn't make a bad decision at all. I made A decision. You don't make a decision and then finish. You make one, then you make another, and so on until you've filled this big broad timeline you call a life. (I find myself using the "you" pronoun a lot, so I apologize if this sounds like I'm addressing you personally. In my mind I imagine I'm addressing a group of directionless youth.)
I can make this work. I could have made Fresno work. I could have moved to Europe and made that work too. There are going to be problems here, and in Europe (namely, missing Fresno and my friends and family). But, there would be problems with Fresno (never knowing what's "outside" [a ‘Pleasantville’ complex], feeling trapped and limited in my hometown, possible feelings of guilt about not making a big leap and testing myself.).
There are problems everywhere, and there are possibilities everywhere, and if you cut yourself off (if you just say, "Well, I've just ruined my life, I can't possibly come out of this") then you'll never give yourself a chance to grow, a chance to find happiness and success and love and all that great stuff that is promised to us as children.
And another thing. George Eliot said, "It is never too late to be what you might have been." It is never too late to change course, and it is never too late to try for something on which you've previously given up. I want to be a writer. But a couple years ago, I really wanted to be a chef. I still do, in some ways. I still hold onto that small dream, and I've never ruled out the possibility of doing both.
People, young people I think, feel confined to one path or another. I don't think there is any real path. People feel their lives slipping, and they say something like, "I've strayed from the path," or "Somewhere I moved off the path and now I don't know what to do." What they don't see is that THERE IS NO PATH. Assuming a path assumes that everything is pre-determined, that there is nothing you can do and that you're simply on autopilot. Even assuming something like God deciding our lives for us doesn't allow for this lack of choice. Even people who say our lives are decided will be quick to point out that God doesn't show people how their lives will turn out. So, let's say you feel yourself slipping. Couldn't THIS just be a part of the path?
I'm always amazed when people lament that their lives have somehow veered horribly off course and now they're worried about finding the right way again.
Why worry? There is always time to do what you want, and to find what you're seeking. Don't let yourself become paralyzed by anxiety or fear that you've made a wrong turn somewhere. Every turn is just a turn.
Also, I have an idea about love that sort of fits with this rant, but I should probably save that... Ah, heck. Here it is...
You'll have to come back tomorrow for that one.
Today I introduce a guest contributor, who could become a regular, weekly contributor, Mr. Jimmy Blanks.
For those unfamiliar, Jimmy is a fellow Fresno native and is currently an MFA student at the University of Montana in Fiction Writing. I've known him since we were in 2nd grade and consider him more of a brother than a friend at this point.
Rather than gushing over his abilities, I'll allow his writing to speak for itself. So without further adieu, here's part one of his first offering, the second part will be up on Wednesday. I should preface it by saying this was initially written as an e-mail and has been edited for length and content.
I'm tired of dreaming. I'm tired of resting on my own talents, and not risking failure. I'm beginning to see that these other MFA students are satisfied to sit passively in these workshops and think abstractly about that "great book" they want to write. I don't want to do this. I want to write something and get it out there; that is why I left Fresno in the first place. It would have been much easier to stay in Fresno and postpone my professional life for another 2-3 years. I can't do that anymore. I want more. I want to start taking those chances and making serious decisions instead of saying, "someday, I'd like to publish something." There are too many vague terms in that dream. There is too much wiggle room.
People seem to put too much pressure on themselves because they believe that "one decision will ruin them forever." What they don't realize is that there are no bad decisions. Let me clarify that slightly. There are no bad decisions within reason. We are going to assume for this argument that the decisions aren't criminal or suicidal.
An example: I decided to go to Montana instead of staying in Fresno. Now, I could have agonized over that, and I can still spend my life agonizing over what a horrible decision I've made. But the truth is, I didn't make a bad decision at all. I made A decision. You don't make a decision and then finish. You make one, then you make another, and so on until you've filled this big broad timeline you call a life. (I find myself using the "you" pronoun a lot, so I apologize if this sounds like I'm addressing you personally. In my mind I imagine I'm addressing a group of directionless youth.)
I can make this work. I could have made Fresno work. I could have moved to Europe and made that work too. There are going to be problems here, and in Europe (namely, missing Fresno and my friends and family). But, there would be problems with Fresno (never knowing what's "outside" [a ‘Pleasantville’ complex], feeling trapped and limited in my hometown, possible feelings of guilt about not making a big leap and testing myself.).
There are problems everywhere, and there are possibilities everywhere, and if you cut yourself off (if you just say, "Well, I've just ruined my life, I can't possibly come out of this") then you'll never give yourself a chance to grow, a chance to find happiness and success and love and all that great stuff that is promised to us as children.
And another thing. George Eliot said, "It is never too late to be what you might have been." It is never too late to change course, and it is never too late to try for something on which you've previously given up. I want to be a writer. But a couple years ago, I really wanted to be a chef. I still do, in some ways. I still hold onto that small dream, and I've never ruled out the possibility of doing both.
People, young people I think, feel confined to one path or another. I don't think there is any real path. People feel their lives slipping, and they say something like, "I've strayed from the path," or "Somewhere I moved off the path and now I don't know what to do." What they don't see is that THERE IS NO PATH. Assuming a path assumes that everything is pre-determined, that there is nothing you can do and that you're simply on autopilot. Even assuming something like God deciding our lives for us doesn't allow for this lack of choice. Even people who say our lives are decided will be quick to point out that God doesn't show people how their lives will turn out. So, let's say you feel yourself slipping. Couldn't THIS just be a part of the path?
I'm always amazed when people lament that their lives have somehow veered horribly off course and now they're worried about finding the right way again.
Why worry? There is always time to do what you want, and to find what you're seeking. Don't let yourself become paralyzed by anxiety or fear that you've made a wrong turn somewhere. Every turn is just a turn.
Also, I have an idea about love that sort of fits with this rant, but I should probably save that... Ah, heck. Here it is...
You'll have to come back tomorrow for that one.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Requisite Mark Foley discussion
No sports today, there’s nothing too exciting to write about. Nobody can beat Tiger, the Raiders can’t beat anybody, and the baseball playoffs are starting, but no team other than the Yankees seems like a championship-caliber team. So, we turn to the headlines.
The big question over the last few days has been how the Mark Foley scandal will affect the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections. Several Republicans have left Congress in the last year over ethics issues (Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, now Foley) and it has pundits asking if this will cause Republican voters to think twice about their candidates or if it will cause “undecideds” to vote for Dems because of these apparent character problems.
Of course not.
99% of people vote along party lines no matter what. According to what I remember of Intro to Psychology, people seek to reduce Cognitive Dissonance by rationalization rather than adjusting their own views, and in this case that’s exactly what Repub voters will do, dismissing this as the liberal media trying to exaggerate a story close to the election to smear the right (as Limbaugh claimed today: read more here or here).
The “undecideds” are such a small percentage of voters that they are not likely to make much of a difference in most, if any races. They tend to be issue voters, making their decisions based on the stances of the candidates in relation to their own views, not based on party-wide generalizations, so one depraved congressman isn’t likely to affect their vote.
The fact is, a congressman was making numerous, lecherous advances on teenage boys working for the Congress. This is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of party or ideological affiliation. To politicize this unfortunate set of events (which will undoubtedly happen), rather than looking at the causes and how it was allowed to continue for allegedly up to 5 years, in hopes of preventing it from happening again, is lamentable. Then again, this is the government we're talking about here. There will be an "investigation" on the taxpayer dime that will render no results of consequence, we'll all forget in 2-3 weeks anyway, and this unfortunate episode will be under rug swept.
Catholic priest scandals, teachers who can’t resist the charms of their 13-year old students (and another rash of shootings and scares in schools), now Congressmen preying on pages…if Congress, the Church and schools are not safe places for children, we seriously need to take a look at ourselves and examine how we got to this point and think about how we can get going in a better direction.
Ultimately, Foley alone does not represent all Republicans, and to try to make it seem that, because of this event, the entire Republican Party lacks character, is ridiculous. (Misleading the public into a seemingly un-winnable war in Iraq, without any semblance of a real plan, though, does not speak highly of them).
The big question over the last few days has been how the Mark Foley scandal will affect the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections. Several Republicans have left Congress in the last year over ethics issues (Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, now Foley) and it has pundits asking if this will cause Republican voters to think twice about their candidates or if it will cause “undecideds” to vote for Dems because of these apparent character problems.
Of course not.
99% of people vote along party lines no matter what. According to what I remember of Intro to Psychology, people seek to reduce Cognitive Dissonance by rationalization rather than adjusting their own views, and in this case that’s exactly what Repub voters will do, dismissing this as the liberal media trying to exaggerate a story close to the election to smear the right (as Limbaugh claimed today: read more here or here).
The “undecideds” are such a small percentage of voters that they are not likely to make much of a difference in most, if any races. They tend to be issue voters, making their decisions based on the stances of the candidates in relation to their own views, not based on party-wide generalizations, so one depraved congressman isn’t likely to affect their vote.
The fact is, a congressman was making numerous, lecherous advances on teenage boys working for the Congress. This is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of party or ideological affiliation. To politicize this unfortunate set of events (which will undoubtedly happen), rather than looking at the causes and how it was allowed to continue for allegedly up to 5 years, in hopes of preventing it from happening again, is lamentable. Then again, this is the government we're talking about here. There will be an "investigation" on the taxpayer dime that will render no results of consequence, we'll all forget in 2-3 weeks anyway, and this unfortunate episode will be under rug swept.
Catholic priest scandals, teachers who can’t resist the charms of their 13-year old students (and another rash of shootings and scares in schools), now Congressmen preying on pages…if Congress, the Church and schools are not safe places for children, we seriously need to take a look at ourselves and examine how we got to this point and think about how we can get going in a better direction.
Ultimately, Foley alone does not represent all Republicans, and to try to make it seem that, because of this event, the entire Republican Party lacks character, is ridiculous. (Misleading the public into a seemingly un-winnable war in Iraq, without any semblance of a real plan, though, does not speak highly of them).
Sunday, October 01, 2006
A dream I had last night...
There's this myth out there that if you die in your dreams, you die in reality. Well, I can officially attest to the fact that this is untrue...I think. Whether or not I died in my dream is technically up for debate, and you'll see why once I've recanted my tale....
I was sitting in the ABC-30 newsroom [this is where I work, for those who don't know] with the usual weekend crew, just hanging out. Randomly, in walks Miss P, the leadership/student council teacher from when I was in high school, complaining, "I left Edison High School so I could get away from a-holes like these idiots." I said, "Miss P, what are you talking about?" She replied, "Shut the f--- up, loser" and stamped away angrily. I was confused. I was even more confused when Miss Carey, who I had for freshman biology back in high school entered the room, talking about the Pope to our weather guy, Angelo. I didn't know what was going on, so I left.
When I walked out of the room I was somehow in some nondescript department store, in search of a gray sweatshirt. I located the area where they should have been and walked over there. En route, I passed a group of 3 loitering teenage boys. One of them turned to me as I walked by and said in aggressive tone, "If you wanna do something, make a move son." I paid him no mind and continued my search for the desired article of clothing.
This clown followed me and said "Hey, I said something to you." I foolishly remark, snidely, "I know, I chose to ignore you." He says "Naw, f--- that, I don't play that sh--." He advanced toward me with a knife. I kept looking for sweatshirts, hardly taking notice of this kid. He finally ends up standing right next to me and says "Ignore this motherf------" and he proceeds to stab me in the stomach and chest. I hit him and run away, but both of the guys he was with pull out guns and shoot me in the chest. I fall to floor, blood and water pouring out of my wounds (I believe this makes me a heretic). I was dying. I was dead. But I was watching myself die, I wasn't actually lying on the floor. Well, I was, but I was also watching me. As if I were participating and watching at the same time.
Then, as if it had been a dream within a dream, I woke up in a laboratory, with myself as the doctor presiding over myself the patient with various apparatuses (apparatti?) attached to me, and I (as doctor) asked myself (as patient), "Did you die?" I reply to myself, "Yes."
I, as the doctor, exclaim, "Eureka! It Worked!" and run gleefully out the room, and a large crowd of people who are sitting in bleachers in the laboratory erupt into applause.
Then I woke up for real....so I died, but I didn't die, because I died in a dream in a dream, and not in the dream itself, if that makes sense.
Go ahead and wager and explanation of that one.
The other day while I was in the shower I posed to myself the question of whether my dreams were in the 1st person or the 3rd person POV (don't ask why, my mind is at times a strange place to be).
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure all of my dreams are in the 1st person POV, but then again in this dream I recited above, I moved to the 3rd person when I died, and then I was both 1st and 3rd person when I was myself as the 'patient' and 'doctor'.
Perhaps I transitioned to avoid dying in the dream because subconsciously I believed that I would die if I died in my dream, and I somehow removed myself to avoid such, and then concocted the laboratory situation as extra safety precaution.
Controlling your dreams in a state of dreaming while knowing your dreaming, is I believe called lucid dreaming, a process discussed cursorily in Cameron Crowe's movie, Vanilla Sky (2001).
Does it matter if we dream in 1st or 3rd POV? Does 1st person mean you can't see your true self and exist in a construct you've created for yourself, while 3rd person means you can see yourself as you are and objectively understand yourself better? Or could be the other way around...1st person meaning you understand exactly who you are and embody your true self, while 3rd person means you don't know who you are and are trying to get an understanding of who you are. Does it have to do with ability to control your dream? I definitely felt more in 'control' of what happened in the 3rd person, while in the 1st person I was more in the moment and it was more 'real'. Does it even matter? Where does the content come from and how do we interpret that, particularly in the context of POV?
(^complete stream-of-consciousness-ness)
I don't have any of the answers, obviously, but I think it's worth thinking about. Dreaming is something we all do, and no one has ever convincingly proven what it all means, and honestly I hope no one ever does. The mystery of the dream is part of what makes it an interesting and integral part of life. It serves as a constant reminder that we don't have all the answers and never will when it comes to ourselves and our world.
For more movies suffused with dreaming and/or ideas about dreaming check out:
Waking Life (2001), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), 8 1/2 (1963, and probably most of Fellini's oeuvre), Lost Highway (1997, and probably more of Lynch's films), and Wild Strawberries (1957) to name a few.
Well, that was definitely an infomercial-ish/Reading Rainbow-esque kinda ending.....meh.
Oh yeah, welcome to October :)
I was sitting in the ABC-30 newsroom [this is where I work, for those who don't know] with the usual weekend crew, just hanging out. Randomly, in walks Miss P, the leadership/student council teacher from when I was in high school, complaining, "I left Edison High School so I could get away from a-holes like these idiots." I said, "Miss P, what are you talking about?" She replied, "Shut the f--- up, loser" and stamped away angrily. I was confused. I was even more confused when Miss Carey, who I had for freshman biology back in high school entered the room, talking about the Pope to our weather guy, Angelo. I didn't know what was going on, so I left.
When I walked out of the room I was somehow in some nondescript department store, in search of a gray sweatshirt. I located the area where they should have been and walked over there. En route, I passed a group of 3 loitering teenage boys. One of them turned to me as I walked by and said in aggressive tone, "If you wanna do something, make a move son." I paid him no mind and continued my search for the desired article of clothing.
This clown followed me and said "Hey, I said something to you." I foolishly remark, snidely, "I know, I chose to ignore you." He says "Naw, f--- that, I don't play that sh--." He advanced toward me with a knife. I kept looking for sweatshirts, hardly taking notice of this kid. He finally ends up standing right next to me and says "Ignore this motherf------" and he proceeds to stab me in the stomach and chest. I hit him and run away, but both of the guys he was with pull out guns and shoot me in the chest. I fall to floor, blood and water pouring out of my wounds (I believe this makes me a heretic). I was dying. I was dead. But I was watching myself die, I wasn't actually lying on the floor. Well, I was, but I was also watching me. As if I were participating and watching at the same time.
Then, as if it had been a dream within a dream, I woke up in a laboratory, with myself as the doctor presiding over myself the patient with various apparatuses (apparatti?) attached to me, and I (as doctor) asked myself (as patient), "Did you die?" I reply to myself, "Yes."
I, as the doctor, exclaim, "Eureka! It Worked!" and run gleefully out the room, and a large crowd of people who are sitting in bleachers in the laboratory erupt into applause.
Then I woke up for real....so I died, but I didn't die, because I died in a dream in a dream, and not in the dream itself, if that makes sense.
Go ahead and wager and explanation of that one.
The other day while I was in the shower I posed to myself the question of whether my dreams were in the 1st person or the 3rd person POV (don't ask why, my mind is at times a strange place to be).
Anyhow, I'm pretty sure all of my dreams are in the 1st person POV, but then again in this dream I recited above, I moved to the 3rd person when I died, and then I was both 1st and 3rd person when I was myself as the 'patient' and 'doctor'.
Perhaps I transitioned to avoid dying in the dream because subconsciously I believed that I would die if I died in my dream, and I somehow removed myself to avoid such, and then concocted the laboratory situation as extra safety precaution.
Controlling your dreams in a state of dreaming while knowing your dreaming, is I believe called lucid dreaming, a process discussed cursorily in Cameron Crowe's movie, Vanilla Sky (2001).
Does it matter if we dream in 1st or 3rd POV? Does 1st person mean you can't see your true self and exist in a construct you've created for yourself, while 3rd person means you can see yourself as you are and objectively understand yourself better? Or could be the other way around...1st person meaning you understand exactly who you are and embody your true self, while 3rd person means you don't know who you are and are trying to get an understanding of who you are. Does it have to do with ability to control your dream? I definitely felt more in 'control' of what happened in the 3rd person, while in the 1st person I was more in the moment and it was more 'real'. Does it even matter? Where does the content come from and how do we interpret that, particularly in the context of POV?
(^complete stream-of-consciousness-ness)
I don't have any of the answers, obviously, but I think it's worth thinking about. Dreaming is something we all do, and no one has ever convincingly proven what it all means, and honestly I hope no one ever does. The mystery of the dream is part of what makes it an interesting and integral part of life. It serves as a constant reminder that we don't have all the answers and never will when it comes to ourselves and our world.
For more movies suffused with dreaming and/or ideas about dreaming check out:
Waking Life (2001), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), 8 1/2 (1963, and probably most of Fellini's oeuvre), Lost Highway (1997, and probably more of Lynch's films), and Wild Strawberries (1957) to name a few.
Well, that was definitely an infomercial-ish/Reading Rainbow-esque kinda ending.....meh.
Oh yeah, welcome to October :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)